Influenza Adverse Events in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ulcerative Colitis, or Psoriatic Arthritis in the Tofacitinib Clinical Development Programs.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis evaluated influenza adverse events (AEs) across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ulcerative colitis (UC), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib clinical programs. METHODS: Available data from phase 1, randomized phase 2/3/3b/4 clinical trials (completed by 2018), and long-term extension (LTE) studies (up to May 2019) in patients with RA, UC, and PsA were included [randomized or Overall (phase 1-3b/4 and LTE studies) tofacitinib cohorts]. Incidence rates (IRs; events per 100 patient-years) of combined influenza AEs (seasons 2004/2005 to 2018/2019) were analyzed, including by tofacitinib dose [5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID)] and age (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years). Logistic regression models evaluated risk factors for influenza AEs in the RA Overall tofacitinib cohort. RESULTS: In randomized cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib, adalimumab, methotrexate, and placebo groups, across indications. Among Overall tofacitinib cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs with tofacitinib 5/10 mg BID, respectively, were higher in the UC (3.66/5.09) versus RA (2.38/2.19) and PsA (1.74/1.29) cohorts. IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib dose and age groups. Most influenza AEs were nonserious and did not require changes to tofacitinib treatment. Significant risk factors for influenza AEs in patients with RA were geographic region, baseline oral corticosteroid and methotrexate use, and tofacitinib dose. CONCLUSIONS: In the RA, UC, and PsA clinical programs, combined influenza AE IRs were highest in UC, while in each indication they were generally similar across tofacitinib, placebo, and comparator groups. Influenza AEs were predominantly nonserious and not associated with changes to tofacitinib treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661, NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364.

Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients with RA aged≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg two times per day or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for infections, overall and by age (50-<65 years; ≥65 years). Probabilities of infections were obtained (Kaplan-Meier estimates). Cox modelling identified infection risk factors. RESULTS: IRs/HRs for all infections, serious infection events (SIEs) and non-serious infections (NSIs) were higher with tofacitinib (10>5 mg two times per day) versus TNFi. For SIEs, HR (95% CI) for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively, were 1.17 (0.92 to 1.50) and 1.48 (1.17 to 1.87). Increased IRs/HRs for all infections and SIEs with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi were more pronounced in patients aged≥65 vs 50-<65 years. SIE probability increased from month 18 and before month 6 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively. NSI probability increased before month 6 with both tofacitinib doses versus TNFi. Across treatments, the most predictive risk factors for SIEs were increasing age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use, and, for NSIs, female sex, history of chronic lung disease/infections, past smoking and time-dependent Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Infections were higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi. Findings may inform future treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor. RESULTS: A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

Overcoming technical and cultural challenges to delivering equitable care for LGBTQ+ individuals in a rural, underserved area.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQ+) community is vulnerable to health-care disparities. Many health-care organizations are working to collect sexual orientation and gender identity in their electronic health records (EHRs), with the goal of providing more inclusive care to their LGBTQ+ patients. There are significant human and technical barriers to making these efforts successful. Based on our 5-year experience at Geisinger (an integrated health system located in a rural, generally conservative area), this case report provides insights to overcome challenges in 4 critical areas: (1) enabling the EHR to collect and use information to support the health-care needs of LGBTQ+ patients, (2) building a culture of awareness and caring, empowering members of the health-care team to break down barriers of misunderstanding and mistrust, (3) developing services to support the needs of LGBTQ+ patients, and (4) partnering with local communities to become a trusted health-care provider.

Frequency and Duration of Early Non-serious Adverse Events in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis assessed frequency or duration of early select non-serious adverse events (AEs; excluding infections), and their impact on treatment discontinuation, in patients with RA or PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo. METHODS: Data were pooled from five phase 3 and one phase 3b/4 studies in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, and two phase 3 studies in patients with active PsA. Select all-causality, non-serious AEs, reported to month 3 (placebo-controlled period), were headache, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and gastric discomfort (including dyspepsia, gastritis, epigastric discomfort, and abdominal discomfort or pain); incidence rates (unique patients with events per 100 patient-years of follow-up), duration of, and discontinuations due to these non-serious AEs were reported. RESULTS: We analyzed 3871 and 710 patients with RA and PsA, respectively. Incidence of non-serious AEs to month 3 was generally similar with tofacitinib and placebo. The most frequent non-serious AEs were headache and diarrhea with tofacitinib, and dyspepsia, nausea, and headache with placebo. Most events were mild or moderate in severity, lasting ≤ 4 weeks. Permanent discontinuations due to non-serious AEs were not observed in patients with PsA, and were < 1.0% in patients with RA across treatment groups. The most frequent cause of temporary discontinuation across all groups was gastric discomfort (0.3-0.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-serious AE incidence was generally similar in patients with RA or PsA receiving tofacitinib or placebo. Most events were mild or moderate and generally resolved within 4 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00960440; NCT00847613; NCT00814307; NCT00856544; NCT00853385; NCT01877668; NCT01882439; NCT02187055.

Tofacitinib is a medicine that can be taken by patients to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Serious side effects that might occur in patients taking tofacitinib are more frequently discussed than the mild, non-serious side effects that patients might consider to be more of a 'nuisance', which often occur shortly (< 3 months) after starting treatment. Here we looked at patients with RA or PsA who were taking tofacitinib or placebo (no medicine) during clinical trials, to find out how often they had certain non-serious side effects, how long they lasted, and whether they caused the patients to stop taking their medication. A similar number of patients with RA or PsA taking tofacitinib or placebo had non-serious side effects. The most common non-serious side effects in patients taking tofacitinib were a headache and diarrhea. The most common non-serious side effects in patients taking placebo (no medicine) were indigestion, a feeling of sickness, and/or headache. Most non-serious side effects were mild or moderate and stopped within about 4 weeks. Fewer than one in every 100 patients with RA, and no patients with PsA, stopped taking their medication because of non-serious side effects. Most patients who stopped taking their medication did so due to a feeling of gastrointestinal (stomach) discomfort.

Postapproval Comparative Safety Study of Tofacitinib and Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: 5-Year Results from a United States-Based Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared 5-year adverse event (AE) incidence rates (IRs) between patients initiating tofacitinib and those initiating new biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) within the United States (US) Corrona RA registry. METHODS: IRs (number of first events/100 patient-years) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious infection events (SIEs), herpes zoster (HZ), malignancies, and death were estimated among tofacitinib and bDMARD initiators, regardless of dose/schedule, between November 6, 2012 (US Food and Drug Administration tofacitinib approval), and July 31, 2018 (follow-up through January 31, 2019). Propensity score (PS) methods were used to control for nonrandom prescribing practices. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to compare rates using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Different risk windows were used for acute (MACE, SIEs, HZ, and venous thromboembolic events [VTEs]) and long-term (malignancy and death) events. VTEs were assessed descriptively. RESULTS: For MACE, SIEs, and HZ, 1999 (3152.1 patient-years) and 8358 (12 869.4 years) tofacitinib and bDMARD initiators were included, respectively; for malignancy/death, 1999 (4505.6 patient-years) and 6354 (16 670.8 patient-years) initiators were included, respectively. AE rates were similar across cohorts, except for HZ, which was significantly higher with tofacitinib versus bDMARDs (PS-trimmed adjusted HR 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-3.75). There were 45 (zero serious) and 88 (five serious) HZ events with tofacitinib and bDMARDs, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar results. VTE IRs (95% CI) were 0.29 (0.13-0.54) and 0.33 (0.24-0.45) for tofacitinib and bDMARDs, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this registry analysis, both cohorts had similar MACE, SIE, malignancy, death, and VTE rates; HZ rates were higher for tofacitinib initaitors than for bDMARD initiators.

Long-term safety of tofacitinib up to 9.5 years: a comprehensive integrated analysis of the rheumatoid arthritis clinical development programme.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report the largest integrated safety analysis of tofacitinib, as of March 2017, using data from phase I, II, III, IIIb/IV and long-term extension studies in adult patients with RA. METHODS: Data were pooled for patients with RA who received ≥1 tofacitinib dose. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events/100 patient-years [PY]; 95% CIs) of first-time occurrences were obtained for adverse events (AEs) of interest. RESULTS: 7061 patients received tofacitinib (total exposure: 22 875 PY; median [range] exposure: 3.1 [0 to 9.6] years). IRs (95% CI) for serious AEs, serious infections, herpes zoster (all), opportunistic infections (excluding tuberculosis [TB]) and TB were 9.0 (8.6 to 9.4), 2.5 (2.3 to 2.7), 3.6 (3.4 to 3.9), 0.4 (0.3 to 0.5) and 0.2 (0.1 to 0.2), respectively. IRs (95% CI) for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]), NMSC and lymphomas were 0.8 (0.7 to 0.9), 0.6 (0.5 to 0.7) and 0.1 (0.0 to 0.1), respectively. IRs (95% CI) for gastrointestinal perforations, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism, arterial thromboembolism and major adverse cardiovascular events were 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.2 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.3 (0.2 to 0.3), 0.4 (0.3 to 0.5) and 0.4 (0.3 to 0.5), respectively. IR (95% CI) for mortality was 0.3 (0.2 to 0.3). IRs generally remained consistent across 6-month intervals to >78 months. CONCLUSION: This represents the largest clinical dataset for a JAK inhibitor in RA to date. IRs remained consistent with previous reports from the tofacitinib RA clinical development programme, and stable over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01262118; NCT01484561; NCT00147498; NCT00413660; NCT00550446; NCT00603512; NCT00687193; NCT01164579; NCT00976599; NCT01059864; NCT01359150; NCT02147587; NCT00960440; NCT00847613; NCT00814307; NCT00856544; NCT00853385; NCT01039688; NCT02187055; NCT00413699; NCT00661661.For summary of phase I, phase II, phase III, phase IIIb/IV and LTE studies included in the integrated safety analysis, see online supplemental table 1.

Bringing Cultural Competency to the EHR: Lessons Learned Providing Respectful, Quality Care to the LGBTQ Community.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) community is vulnerable to healthcare disparities. Many healthcare organizations are contemplating efforts to collect sexual orientation and gender identity in the electronic health record (EHR), with a goal of providing more respectful, inclusive, high-quality care to their LGBTQ patients. There are significant human and technical barriers that must be overcome to make these efforts successful. Based on our four-year experience at Geisinger (an integrated health system located in a rural, generally conservative area), we provide insights to overcome challenges in two critical areas: 1) enabling the EHR to collect and use information to support the healthcare needs of LGBTQ patients, and 2) building a culture of awareness and caring, empowering members of the healthcare team to break down barriers of misunderstanding and mistrust.

Challenges with quality of race and ethnicity data in observational databases.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the quality of race and ethnicity information in observational health databases, including electronic health records (EHRs), and to propose patient self-recording as an improvement strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed completeness of race and ethnicity information in large observational health databases in the United States (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Optum Labs), and at a single healthcare system in New York City serving a racially and ethnically diverse population. We compared race and ethnicity data collected via administrative processes with data recorded directly by respondents via paper surveys (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems). Respondent-recorded data were considered the gold standard for the collection of race and ethnicity information. RESULTS: Among the 160 million patients from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Optum Labs datasets, race or ethnicity was unknown for 25%. Among the 2.4 million patients in the single New York City healthcare system's EHR, race or ethnicity was unknown for 57%. However, when patients directly recorded their race and ethnicity, 86% provided clinically meaningful information, and 66% of patients reported information that was discrepant with the EHR. DISCUSSION: Race and ethnicity data are critical to support precision medicine initiatives and to determine healthcare disparities; however, the quality of this information in observational databases is concerning. Patient self-recording through the use of patient-facing tools can substantially increase the quality of the information while engaging patients in their health. CONCLUSIONS: Patient self-recording may improve the completeness of race and ethnicity information.